Hi
There's been a lot of talk around this subject lately with the UCI allowing them for 2016 (? I think).
Anyway, the magazines always seem to gush about their function but slate their aesthetics, generally describing them as 'visually intrusive,' and looking like hybrid mountain bike systems.
It seems to me if they used standard 'round circumference' or solid edge discs instead of wavy or petal discs, they would be sufficiently different to MTB brakes.
Since when did every bike disc have to be wavy? OK, they're supposed to be more efficient at shedding water, but is this necessarily a good thing? Drillings were always there for that reason, and the petals just wear the pads out quicker. Also, a more progressive feel in the wet would replicate closer what the average road rider is accustomed to.
I have a disc road bike now and the brakes are superb. They do squeal like mad in the wet, though; I hope this settles down when the pads bed in...
There's been a lot of talk around this subject lately with the UCI allowing them for 2016 (? I think).
Anyway, the magazines always seem to gush about their function but slate their aesthetics, generally describing them as 'visually intrusive,' and looking like hybrid mountain bike systems.
It seems to me if they used standard 'round circumference' or solid edge discs instead of wavy or petal discs, they would be sufficiently different to MTB brakes.
Since when did every bike disc have to be wavy? OK, they're supposed to be more efficient at shedding water, but is this necessarily a good thing? Drillings were always there for that reason, and the petals just wear the pads out quicker. Also, a more progressive feel in the wet would replicate closer what the average road rider is accustomed to.
I have a disc road bike now and the brakes are superb. They do squeal like mad in the wet, though; I hope this settles down when the pads bed in...